Dem
47
GOP
53
Here is the question we put before readers last time we had a proper mailbag:
S.H. in Duluth, MN, asks: I've finally reached a point in life where I have enough disposable income to get an actual subscription to any one news outlet of my choice. However, with a good number to choose from, and my own lack of knowledge on the subject, I'm not exactly sure which one might be optimal. Do you have any thoughts on which one I might want to go with, accounting for things like cost, content, who owns the paper, bias, etc.? Even just a few ideas would be great!
And here some of the answers we got in response:
C.S. in Tucson, AZ: Suggestions for S.H. in Duluth:
- Subscribe to the news source you are most drawn to. Don't expect that paying for news will change your interests.
- Go local. Small towns and big city news reporting has suffered mightily. Subscribe to your local newspaper. Because some papers are so far gone, investing in something that is flat-lining would be a hard first choice for me.
- Go big. The Economist, The Atlantic, ProPublica, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair have some impressive reporting.
- Go public. PBS, NPR and, in Minnesota, MPR. The BBC is darn good, too. There are small public radio stations that do a remarkable job (WTIP in Grand Marais, for example) and are worthy of consideration. Others, such as AZPM in Tucson, we give money but ignore the programming because it is content-light.
- Decide that you cannot save an industry but can save a life, maybe more than one. Instead of feeding a dying industry, news reporting, give money and time to a cause that matters. But, do so with the understanding that all organizations are imperfect, and the one you choose will be out of alignment with your sensibilities to some degree. The United Way, Salvation Army, and Goodwill are local and unfortunately essential in all communities. The ACLU seems pretty dang important as do organizations focused on justice, human rights, the poor and environmental issues.
If all else fails, there's The Onion, America's Finest News Source.
M.D.K. in Portland, OR: Subscribe to a local newspaper. It will connect you to people in your community in ways you cannot imagine.
A.S. in Renton, WA: S.H. in Duluth did not specify the reach they desire in their one news outlet. Local? Regional? National? International? For myself, I appreciate my local paper, the Renton Reporter. They maximize limited resources, and write about topics of immediate interest to me. Regionally, as someone who came of age in the Intermountain West, I value High Country News. Nationally/internationally, I tend to read The Guardian (UK).
J.E. in San Jose, CA: Seems like you would have to start with the Duluth News Tribune, which appears to not be owned by a giant corporation.
J.W. in Newton, MA (moving imminently to Victoria, BC Canada): The American people seem to hate the press, but it is more crucial than ever to keep newspapers alive. I'd recommend that S.H. start by supporting their local newspaper in Duluth, or perhaps The Minnesota Star-Tribune.
For national coverage, arts, and games, The New York Times is close to essential. They get a lot of grief for their hand-wringing and whataboutism, but they are the U.S. paper of record, and they have several great columnists (e.g., Thomas Edsell on the center-left, David French on the center-right) to offset the Trump loyalists like Ross Douthat (whose pieces I boycott). They make an attempt to cover the world at large, and in my view, they have not bent the knee to Mango Mussolini. I know some Electoral-Vote.com readers disagree with me on this point.
It's great to get some international coverage. As my wife and I prepare to emigrate to Canada, just in case democracy really does die in America, I've subscribed to The Globe and Mail, which reads like a Canadian mash-up of the Times and The Wall Street Journal. I like being challenged by more right-leaning writers who are not nuts. And to get a more left-wing perspective, I drop a few bucks each month to support The Guardian in the UK. Amazingly, they have no paywall!
Supporting 4-5 newspapers (and Electoral-Vote.com!) costs me less than $100 per month. Easily worth it, in my view. I also read free content when I can get it.
B.S. in Huntington Beach, CA: I try to be informed politically by reviewing a variety of sites on a regular basis, some more regularly than others. There are two political sites to which I am faithful every day: Electoral-Vote.com, and The New York Times. Loyal E-V.com readers know why the site is so compelling, but for those who do not subscribe to the NYT, I believe you are missing out.
The Times provides, on a daily basis, a broad overview of significant national stories. Just perusing the headlines is informative. In addition, their journalists are top-notch, well-informed, and insightful, so when I choose to read an in-depth article, it is always worth the time.
The Times also provides diversions on a daily basis, which I enjoy. For example, Wordle, Mini Crossword, Sports Connections, etc., keep the brain functioning.
I love to cook, and having a subscription provides access to Times cooking recommendations, and I have found their recipes to be both doable and amazing. Try their Lasagna made with meatballs and sausage, or their Chicken Alfredo Lasagna. Amazing!
Where I find them lacking is in their New York/east coast bias, their unfailing support of Israel, and their provision of a forum for the likes of Bret Stephens and other right-wing shills in the interest of "balance."
All in all, I have found the Times to be by far the best of the remaining major national news outlets and well worth the subscription cost.
J.M. in Eagle Mills, NY: I subscribe to The New York Times, strictly digital now. This goes back to our days of living in the metro New York area 40 years ago, when we could get local delivery of the dead-tree edition. Some years back, the NYT started offering delivery in the Albany, NY, area, so we rejoined. We cut back delivery to Sunday only, but that also included digital, and eventually dropped delivery when we were on the road too much, and were constantly putting delivery on hold.
Pluses: Word games either on computer (preferred) or in an app; broad reach of news coverage; one subscription can be used by 3 people (or 4; they keep bugging me).
Minuses: The Grey Lady has become somewhat tentative about covering the goings-on in the current administration, and tends to pull punches.
D.R. in Phoenix, AZ: The Atlantic has always been my ideal of what smart grown-ups read. There are in-depth articles written by very smart, very veteran journalists on topics you won't find anywhere else. One of my favorites was an in-depth look at the industry of breaking down ships that are no longer seaworthy. It's not a topic I ever would have sought out, but once I read the first paragraph, I was hooked by the quality of the writing. Every month there's at least one like that. Their politics coverage is superb. They definitely lean left these days, but their motto is "Of no party or clique." This has been under their masthead since 1857, which is probably the only time in America's history more polarized than this one, and I think they try hard to honor the sentiment. Give them a try.
J.B. in Aarhus, Denmark: The Atlantic.
I've had an online subscription for the last 6 years and I read four to six articles every week. Strangely enough, although I consider myself very much to the left, I find myself reading the Never Trump writers all the time. Guilty pleasures. This includes David Frum and Tom Nichols (born-again Reaganauts) who I would have disdained entirely in the 1980's. I find myself agreeing with almost everything that Tom Nichols writes and every single time wondering: Is it him or is it me?
The Atlantic's staff of writers are superb: David Graham, Adam Sewer, Anne Applebaum (the best in her field) Jonathan Chait, Helen Lewis. The list goes on and on...
B.C. in Phoenix, AZ: S.H. in Duluth should know I think I get a real bargain with my monthly and yearly contributions to three news organizations which are the most responsible in existence:
- NPR, via my local radio station
- PBS, via my local television station
- Electoral-Vote.com, via a Patreon monthly donation (see the top of the home page)
A.L. in San Diego, CA: Consider membership at your local public broadcaster, especially if they have a local newsroom and a good website. The national news from NPR and PBS relies on the local broadcasters for both transmission and, crucially, funding.
Another good option is a subscription to The Guardian, a British paper which also puts out U.S., Australia, Europe, and international editions.
Yes, these sources make the news available to all, including those who don't subscribe. That's part of why they're so important and worthy of support from those of us who can afford to.
N.G. in San Jose, CA: I have found The Guardian worth a subscription. I am very impressed with their international, American and climate crisis news coverage, as well as their editorial columns. A plus for me is that it is owned by a trust. From Wikipedia:
...owned by the Scott Trust Limited. The trust was created in 1936 to "secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity and to safeguard the journalistic freedom and liberal values of The Guardian free from commercial or political interference." The trust was converted into a limited company in 2008, with a constitution written so as to maintain for The Guardian the same protections as were built into the structure of the Scott Trust by its creators. Profits are reinvested in its journalism rather than distributed to owners or shareholders.It has a leftist slant. But if that bothers you, I would recommend you take a look and see its wide-ranging coverage and then decide.
D.A. in Brooklyn, NY: I tend to go for British media because I (mostly) know the language and it is not nearly as parochial as U.S. media (including The New York Times). So I was going to suggest The Guardian or The Economist.
The NYT does beckon, simply because of its influence and stature. And the Times does have some very good (albeit almost always U.S.-centric) in-depth articles (for example, Hannah Dreier's articles on immigration, and on fire fighters). But I'm going to make a recommendation that I really hate to make: Apple News+. (Ugh. There. I've said it. More ka-ching ka-ching for that corporate behemoth.) The reason is that it opens up access to an awful lot of news-media that have paywalls. Like The Wall St Journal, The Economist, The Atlantic, and so much more.
B.M. in Dyer, IN: To answer S.H., I would put in my vote for the Financial Times. FT has excellent coverage of business, politics and news that covers the full globe. I got my first exposure to it in college from the general advice of the Dean of the Business School I attended—he indicated that while The Wall Street Journal was "OK" for business coverage, if you wanted a full picture, you should read FT. I started reading several years afterwards (buying the famous salmon-colored newspapers at first) and eventually becoming a full subscriber. Nowadays, I read FT online via the computer or through its excellent app on an iPad.
It is pricey, to be clear, but something that I have found well worth it. Compared to the columnists in the competing WSJ, FT's are much more balanced and center to center-right (European center-right). There are some portions that are free and only require a registration, such as FT's "Alphaville," a great source for snark in the business world along with excellent analysis.
Last thing, the President Trump "TACO" acronym came from FT reporter Robert Armstrong... one might consider that a bonus.
V.W. in Wiltshire, England, UK: I am poorly equipped to comment on the best news outlets in Minnesota or the United States, but in addition to Electoral-Vote.com I try to read both The Telegraph and The Guardian each day. The extent to which I read either depends how busy I am, of course, but I find that in order to triangulate what I think about an issue, it's helpful to read what the center-right Torygraph and the center-left Grauniad (to use their colloquial names...) are saying. A few of my friends think I am weird for failing to pick a side, and perhaps they are right.
P.S.: There is a lyric to a song by an Australian band called Redgum, which goes "I love to read the Bulletin and watch the ABC, I love to air my well-informed opinions constantly...", which probably does describe me nowadays, notwithstanding the Bulletin being long gone!
J.H. in Parker, AZ: I would suggest a subscription to The Bulwark, which, for those who may not know, is mainly run by a cadre of Never-Trump Republicans. I find them to be a nice change of pace in tone and content from mainstream and left-leaning news sources and, given their history, the contributors are especially keen to point out the hypocrisy of MAGA mouthpieces and enablers. It's also been interesting to watch their crew grow over time, with more exposure to people who might have been outside their bubble in the past. Also, much of their content is available for free if you want to check them out before sending them your money.
S.W. in Wimberley, TX: Heather Cox Richardson is free to read but, if you're like me, you'll be so appreciative of her knowledge, passion, and ability to capture the news and share it a nonpartisan way, you'll want to subscribe.
Also, Joyce White Vance is an experienced legal eagle who explains in the most easily understandable ways but is definitely partisan.
M.W. in Cleveland, OH: I spend money for premium access to two news sources. Although both of them have free tiers, they are the two organizations that I have encountered that I find sufficiently reliable and ideologically sane to be worth supporting financially.
First, Talking Points Memo. To be honest, I only read the news on the site sporadically, but I read founding Editor-in-Chief Josh Marshall's blog religiously; I also listen to their podcast (although my ad-free status on the site does not entitle me to an ad-free version of the podcast, which is annoying but minor).
Josh, his podcast co-host Kate, and the rest of the reporters and editors on the site have good heads on their shoulders. They share my progressive values, clearly, but because they are actually in the thick of things doing real reporting, they also avoid falling prey to some of the more common fallacies common on the left. For instance, Josh has repeatedly hammered home the importance of finding Democratic candidates who are a good fit for their districts, rather than simply always trying to elect more leftists in the mold of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D).
They are also very critical of the cringing, afraid-of-their-own-shadows attitude common among Senate and some House Democrats. They want Democrats to be unapologetic in their beliefs, and clear in their messaging. I have come, through their reporting and Josh's writing, to see the true divide in the Democratic Party through the lens of effective anti-Trumpism and advocacy for specific outcomes, rather than simply being about left versus center.
There are several other major issues where I find TPM to be consistently clear-eyed and analytical, even as they recognize the urgency of the many issues facing our country.
Second, the Opening Arguments podcast. This is a show whose basic premise is pairing lawyers and smart lay people together to discuss the law through a political lens. The lay people aren't just there to add humor, though they do that; the real genius of the show's format is the way the non-lawyer cohost(s) (usually Thomas Smith, but sometimes joined by his wife Lydia Smith) stand in for non-lawyers in the audience as they grapple with the meaning of abstruse legal terminology. (It should be noted, though, that many lawyers listen to the show, because it's technical enough not to be insulting to people with the relevant expertise.)
We all need to understand what various cases and precedents mean in real-world terms, and the Smiths help us do that. The show also often points out the ways the mainstream media either completely misrepresents or simply ignores major legal cases.
Meanwhile, the legal minds on the show, currently criminal immigration attorney Matt Cameron and disability rights lawyer Jenessa Seymour, are both fantastic. They each have their own brand of humor mixed with strong moral stances on some of the most urgent topics of our day. That said, the show does also sometimes delve into historical SCOTUS cases, analyzing them for historical interest and for contrast to today's corrupt, venal conservative "justices."
Overall, I find OA to be illuminating. Thanks to OA, TPM, and of course Electoral-Vote.com, I am able to absorb current events with a significant sense of context and nuance that would be totally absent if I was simply leaning on legacy media to get the job done.
M.D. in North Canton, OH: So this subject is actually something I have meaning to mention to the boys (and now girls) at Electoral-Vote.com. The Apple One bundle is pricey at $38 a month, but it gets you so much. Apple News+ includes almost every newspaper (only The New York Times has opted out, from what I have searched for), every major magazine, and a ton of other media, as well. Apple Music, with just about every song. Then everything else you would expect: TV, fitness, arcade and 2TB of cloud storage.
Now, like I say, it's pricey, but the other part of this is it's shareable with up to 5 other users and it explicitly says they don't have to be in your household. I have it, my wife, my daughter, my brother, and both our parents are on the plan. The only thing they need to watch out for is if they buy something, as it will show up on our bill. I know I sound like an ad, but it really is a pretty good deal and we consider it a Christmas/birthday present for our parents. (Cause what can you possibly buy an 80-year-old that will give them that much entertainment?) I would say that, just for me and my wife, it is easily worth $20 a month. If you have 2 other people that will benefit, then it's totally worth it.
K.V. in Valley Village, CA: Apple News+ is the obvious answer, since for a single, low fee, you get the full versions of a wide range of publications. Unfortunately, The New York Times is no longer included, which is pretty much a must-have, though clearly far below Electoral-Vote.com in importance.
M.M. in Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK: Without question, the most worthwhile subscription is to PressReader. It provides facsimiles of almost every newspaper and journal in the world
T.V.P. in Portland, OR: Since you read Electoral-Vote.com, S.H. in Duluth, you get a broad view of daily news with a politics-centered perspective, and a heavy dose of popular culture and sports items. The last of my subscriptions that I would cancel is Science News, a great publication of news and articles from all the sciences from Anthropology to Zoology. I am a retired professor of Art Theory and Religious Studies, but I am curious about our world and can't imagine not keeping up with the sciences. I spend almost as much time reading Science News and Electoral-vote.com as my reading of novels and historical non-fiction.
B.T. in Kansas City, MO: If you're really into sports and cultural analysis, check out Defector. It's made up of former Deadspin staff who resigned en masse after their corporate overlords forced them to stick to sports. Defector is owned by the writers, so there's no ads or biases favoring corporate interests (the staff have borderline communist-leaning viewpoints, however, so take that as you will). They cover a wide range of sports, with NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL being their bread and butter, but you'll also find plenty of articles on TV, Broadway and politics. It's $80 a year to subscribe, though if you want to comment on articles with the lovingly named "Commentariat" community, that'll cost extra. If you want a free taste of what they're like, they also have a number of podcasts. I recommend The Distraction, which is hosted by arguably their two best writers, Drew Magary and David Roth.
M.W.O. in Syracuse, NY: I recommend the paper version of The Onion. It costs $100/year. It also comes with an e-mail subscription that has different articles than the print edition. The print edition is delivered towards the end of each month. It is often hilarious and sometimes a little painful but a delightful diversion. I also subscribe to the on-line versions of The New York Times, The Guardian and The Associated Press.
Here is the question for next week:
L.L. in Seymour, CT, asks: How can I help Minnesotans right now? And others? How to help D.G. in St. Paul? I am protesting, all of the Connecticut federal delegation is speaking out as I would want them to, our state AG is at the forefront of lawsuits, and our state legislature is proposing legislation further limiting ICE in Connecticut. What else can I be doing?
Submit your answers to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "Civil Disobedience"!